Conservative Commentary/Opinion on Local, State & National issues. Hours 6am to 7pm to respond to comments
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
REG letter to Morganti of May 15, 2012 on Casino
Comment Up
Click to read
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Nice try REG. Trying to pawn off a building as being "Substantially Complete" without completion od all Life Support Systems and Utilities is a Fool's Errand that embarasses REG's professional reputation.
Although not contracturally required, it is noted that the "Architect of Record" did not notify our Building Department, much less the WPB Building Inspector. Great cooperation and good faith!
That's exactly how I would interpret it. The city will be issuing a temporary CO so that Mulligan's can open. At that point I would think the city is responsible for the building and maintenance thereof. This has nothing to do with the crappy, inferior fixtures, etc. that were installed on our building and I would imagine that both sides are avoiding any legal action.
The letter is ambiguous at best. The last sentence leaves one to believe that work is on-going and the city doesn't have "final, full use of the building." And there is no maintenance program, short of wiping off hinges and door handles morning and night - that would make-up for substandard hardware. The tenants expect a space in a DRY building where they can complete their finishes without the expectation of water or other damage. That is preventing Kilwin's from doing work, and perhaps others too. Wasn't their mention of water leaking into Mulligan restroom area?
4 comments:
Nice try REG.
Trying to pawn off a building as being "Substantially Complete" without completion od all Life Support Systems and Utilities is a Fool's Errand that embarasses REG's professional reputation.
Although not contracturally required, it is noted that the "Architect of Record" did not notify our Building Department, much less the WPB Building Inspector. Great cooperation and good faith!
Seems like it wouldn't be the city's responsibility for maintenance till after the CO was issued.
That's exactly how I would interpret it. The city will be issuing a temporary CO so that Mulligan's can open. At that point I would think the city is responsible for the building and maintenance thereof. This has nothing to do with the crappy, inferior fixtures, etc. that were installed on our building and I would imagine that both sides are avoiding any legal action.
The letter is ambiguous at best. The last sentence leaves one to believe that work is on-going and the city doesn't have "final, full use of the building." And there is no maintenance program, short of wiping off hinges and door handles morning and night - that would make-up for substandard hardware. The tenants expect a space in a DRY building where they can complete their finishes without the expectation of water or other damage. That is preventing Kilwin's from doing work, and perhaps others too. Wasn't their mention of water leaking into Mulligan restroom area?
Post a Comment